Hillary Clinton set a statewide raw-vote margin record in CA

Hillary won 33 out of 58 counties. And California is one of the most Urban states in the country.

 

Source? Didn't think so. California has one of the most transparent voting systems in the country.

 

Yes, there are more small counties in the most densely populated areas. Land wise CA is NOT the most urban state and counties get quite large in rural areas.

 

No, that's not how it works. I hate to disappoint you, but California has a long history of taking it's time getting the votes counted right, all the way back to the the Nixon days, the Reagan days, etc. It is a HUGE state and some counties just take more time. Plus, there are absentee/military ballots that are counted starting 10 days after the election depending on county. So, it was a nice attempt at trolling on your part, also a little disappointing, because I really thought you are a serious poster and now I see I have fooled myself... but oh well, live and learn.

 

No, that's not how it works. Please feel free to play in the sandbox of your fact-free universe, but no, that's not how it works. I really feel sorry for poor souls who spurt this nonsensical crap, completely lacking in fact or basis, and then expect serious people to take them for real. Well, I don't.

 

Good point, If California does manage to secede the businesses that create good jobs would be gone too. Yes, even Silicon Valley.

 

Hillary's win margin now exceeds TWO MILLION:


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...r-two-million-n687701?cid=par-sy-netzero-gen4



As additional votes have been counted in the presidential election, especially on the West Coast, Hillary Clinton's national popular-vote lead over Donald Trump now exceeds 2 million votes, according to an ongoing tally by the Cook Political Report's David Wasserman.

Hillary Clinton's vote total is 64,223,986 (48.1% of the vote), while Trump's is 62,206,395 (46.6%) - a difference of 2,017,591 votes (1.5%).


To put that popular-vote margin into perspective, Al Gore's popular-vote lead over George W. Bush in 2000 - when Bush won the Electoral College - was 547,000 votes. Also noteworthy: Clinton's 64-plus million votes is nearing in on the 65.9 million Barack Obama won in 2012.

Of course, presidents are elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote, and what sunk Clinton's campaign was her performance in the key battleground states, particularly in the Midwest. And by Wasserman's count, Trump beat Clinton in 13 key swing states by a 48.5%-to-46.6% margin. In the non-swing states, though, Clinton is ahead of Trump 48.9%-to-45.6%





It is time for people to consider SECESSION from the Trump despotism.

 

Land doesn't vote. Just because a county has more trees and tumble weeds doesn't mean much electorally.

In raw statistics California is easily one of the most urban states in the country, right up with New Jersey, Nevada, and Massachusetts.

 

You are just wrong. Rural means more land than people. And yes, land DOES vote that is why we have the electoral college. Trump WON most of the GEOGRAPHIC U.S. I know it's hard for the hard-core lefties to accept though.

 

No, that's not why Trump won, you can easily put together a map of 270 electoral votes that has the minority of land (especially with Alaska and Montana on the losing side...).

The relationship to the electoral college is not with land...it's with individual states. Delaware hardly has any land but it gets just as many votes as Montana which has tons.

A good majority of that "rural" land in California is actually natural parks or farmland that literally doesn't have any people at all....did Trump really "win" that?

 

She won California by overwhelming margins. That does not mean that more of the country electorically chose Hillary Clinton. It just means California is the outlier of a State that we always knew it to be. If California wants to secede and make Hillary president of California, I'd be happy to oblige.

 

Trump won because the majority of the geographic vote was in his favor.

 

Surprising he never campaigned in Alaska then.

 

There was another update to the vote totals - Hillary has passed Obama's total raw votes in 2012 in CA. Trump still needs about ~700,000 to match Romney's

 

So would I, especially if Minnesota makes the same move. Here is our secession symbol:

 

California is being investigated for illegals voting and it has been proven that dead people are voting. In some states it is not against the law to vote for dead people and in over 20 states you only need a signature to vote. It's not against the law in some states to vote as many times as you want to.

Both CNN and FOXNEWS has said you can vote 2 or even 3 times in some states. Do a google search and you will see it for yourself. The evidence is all over the internet so quit calling us liars and do your research.

 

Why would Trump campaign in Alaska? Historically it has always voted Republican so it's not a swing state and if it's not a swing state why would he waste money there when he already has Alaska? Sarah Palin was campaigning for him and she is from Alaska so that helped boost Trump in Alaska im sure.

Candidates fight for swing states. California will always go to Democrats so Trump never even wasted his time with the state. I doubt Hillary even went there. You only get so much money to use when your running for president.

 

I posted my source in the thread I started. It's no secret in some states you can vote for dead people or change your vote or even vote 2-3 times. Doa google search. Even CNN and Foxnews has stated that. As for California all you need is a signature to vote. This is the same for a lot of states making it easy for non us citizens to vote.

Since you want to call me a liar here is the link: http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/how-many-illegals-voted-2016-presidential-election/
There is multiple sites discusing the illegal voter fraud in California that Obama on tape encouraged illegals to do. I think you can figure out why Hillary has so many votes in California now. If you honestly believe she had 2 mil+ votes from us citizens your wrong. Obama had the full support of his party so where did these 2 million voters come from? Even if the democrats had an increase in voter registration it would not be as high as 2 million. No state saw that increase thus it was illegals that gave her such a high number. Figure it out.

The evidence is out there. Trump won. California having more votes weather it be from fraud or legally it does not change the outcome for the next 4 years. California is stuck with us and I would like to point out most of the rural farming communities voted for Trump in California. Two massive cities do not decided the fate of the country. The majority of Americans across the state voted for Trump and he got his votes without fraud. How long are you guys going to keep this going before you get tired? Seriously give the man a chance and move on. We gave Obama a chance. It's time for you guys to do the same with Trump.

California does not matter as the election is over. We have the electoral college so crooks can't fraud there way into being our next president.

 

California in the last four years has seen a voter registration increase of around 1 million people. I just looked online. While the Democrats did have more than 50% of those people the Republicans still had a lot of those people. So now Hillary has some 2 million new voters in California yet she had less then 1 million new registered voters. Do you see where this is going?

Obama had a ton of support from his people including African Americans so assuming he had most of the democrats voting for him from the state of California it is reasonable to assume that out of the 2+ million new voters hillary had over a million of them have to be illegals. I find it hard to believe over a million registered democrats chose not to vote for Obama in 2012. It is clear to see Hillary only had the numbers she has do to fraud encouraged by Obama.

I seriously doubt Hillary had the popular vote but if you anti Trump people want to be blind and hold on to false hope then go ahead.

 

You may want to beam yourself up to the 21st Century, since this is neither the Nixon or Reagan days. Maybe the goal was to get it right back then, but I'm not sure what the goal is now, and I doubt you do either.

Glad to see you came out on the losing side of the ledger though. Too bad you wasted all that time trolling those double digit leads and huge Electoral College numbers for Hillary along the way. Maybe next time you'll find some more reputable polls to follow instead of that MSM garbage you relied upon throughout the course of the campaign.

 

These illegals are a curse on the soul of this nation.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

That depends on whether they want to stay there. I am not aware of capitalist companies doing well in socialist countries.

 

Many companies are leaving for the business friendly confines of Texas.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/17/editorial-businesses-flee-californias-high-taxes-a/

 

The three largest dark blue states, solid blue California, New York and Illinois give the Democrats a huge advantage in the electoral college. A total of 104 electoral votes to start out with where Republicans don't stand a chance of winning. The top three Republican states, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, The Republicans start out with 65 electoral votes.

If you add the northeast leaving out New Hampshire and Pennsylvania since Trump won Pennslvania that is an additional 59 electoral that any Republican candidate doesn't have a shot at. Throw in Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, 23 more, that's 186 electoral votes in the Democratic bag before the first votes are cast. If you include Minnesota, that is 192.

Add all the plain states, minus Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada, plus Alaska that is 54 solid red Republican. Go with the south minus North Carolina, Virginia, but including west Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri, you have 72. Add them all together along with the big three that comes out to 191. Even, that is if Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, three previously solid blue states are now considered tossup or swing states. If not, add 46 to the Democratic total. I think this year was unique and come 2020, whomever the Democratic candidate is can count on these three states. Probably Colorado and Nevada also.

 

Too bad Hill dog doesn't know what it takes to win the presidency